ReviewCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2026
2026 revised CVIT clinical expert consensus on drug coated balloons for coronary artery disease.
Review in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are attracting attention as a therapeutic alternative to drug-eluting stents (DES) in percutaneous coronary interventions. DCB technology allows direct delivery of antiproliferative drugs to the vessel wall without implantation of a permanent metallic prosthesis, thereby avoiding late stent-related complications. Compared with DES, DCB remain a developing technology, and a number of DCB devices are still undergoing development or clinical evaluation. There is currently no consensus supporting a "class effect" among DCBs due to substantial differences in drug type, dosage, excipients, release kinetics, and tissue drug concentrations. Following consistent scientific evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel- or sirolimus-based DCBs in the treatment of in-stent restenosis, clinical interest has expanded over the past decade to include de novo coronary lesions. DCB angioplasty is now generally accepted in de novo small vessel disease, whereas its use in large vessel lesions remains an evolving topic compared with the current gold-standard DES. Optimal lesion preparation remains a fundamental prerequisite for successful and effective DCB angioplasty, irrespective of the specific DCB platform. In this context, intracoronary imaging and physiological assessments may offer important guidance in tailoring lesion preparation and optimizing treatment strategies. The Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) convened a task force to revise an expert consensus document outlining indications, lesion preparation strategies, and the role of intravascular imaging and physiological assessment in optimizing DCB-based treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42853478What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.